Grey Matters

Sometimes I despair that so many people jump on this or that bandwagon without giving the slightest thought to an issue. The recently revealed recording of Trump talking about his sexual adventures is one such. I’ve actually thought about it. Here are my thoughts.

As soon as I heard the Trump recording, I thought, “Typical locker room talk. He’s just bragging as so many guys do.”

No one among us has not heard such talk before (unless your mommy gave you a note that got you out of gym class for four years of high school). I’d wager there’s not a locker room in America and much of the rest of the world where talk like that doesn’t go on – much of it false braggadocio. Dudes will ever and always try to impress other dudes with their manliness and prowess with the ladies.

It works the other way too. Possibly not as many women brag as do men but there’s plenty of “dirty” talk to go around. When I was stationed in NY, I met a girl and her three friends and she and I ended up dating, but I also spent a lot of time with her and her three besties. It was not at all uncommon for them to talk about some guy’s crotch bulge of how nice his ass looked. Or what they’d like to do to him. It isn’t only men who undress others with their eyes.

Humans are sexual creatures. We all want it, some of us all the time.

Donald bragged that he could grab a woman’s lady parts or plant a kiss and she would let him because he’s a star. Star power works like that on many women. Athletic prowess does as well. Henry Kissinger once said that power is a great aphrodisiac. We know from any number of examples that money is too.

Many Hollywood stars are stars at least as much for their looks as for their acting, and any number of people, men and women alike, would jump in the sack with their favorite star without hesitation. How and why people are attracted to each other is complex. Why anyone would “let” someone touch “private parts” is complex too. But power is indeed an aphrodisiac and may well play a part in permitting sexual advances.

Is it really assault if the women “let” him? Is it assault if a guy touches his date’s breast when they’re parked at Lovers Overlook?

If she rebuffs his advances and he persists, that’s probably assault. But just grabbing private parts, and she permits it (whether star power, money or just damned good looks), that doesn’t strike me as assault.

In the old days, a guy would try to get to “second base” or “third base” and if the woman objected, he would strike out. It wasn’t assault, it was just testing boundaries.

Of course, in these “progressive” times, when a politically correct guy needs to ask permission before each advance he makes, just an adoring look may be “assault” in some circles. Do we need to get lawyers involved to draw up a Third Date Agreement On Physical Intimacy?

Now, the question arises as to whether or not Trump actually did what he was bragging about eleven years ago. Donald said that it was “just words” and that he didn’t actually do what he was bragging about. In the absence of actual evidence, I’m going to assume, as should you, that he was just making it up. Lots of men exaggerate their sexual prowess.

And, of course, if he really did what he bragged about, and they let him, rather than rebuff his advances, then it was not assault at all. It was consensual.

As for all those who have taken Trump’s bragging as actual fact and labeled it as “sexual assault,” they need to get a grip. I’m betting that a large percentage of these same folks have done the very same thing and made similar bragging claims. They are hypocrites. Many of those politicians distancing themselves from Trump over this issue are doing so more out of concern over political perceptions than any real disgust over Trump’s remarks. They are politically calculating hypocrites.

None of which is to say that sexual assault is a trivial matter. Actual sexual assault. The kind committed by William Jefferson “Slick Willie” Clinton and aggravated by his spouse who assaulted his victims verbally every time there was a “bimbo eruption” – Hillary’s term for when another Bill Clinton victim came forward.

Now, you may not agree with my conclusions but at least I’ve taken the time to think about it.

Once upon a time, before the United States was formed, governments owned their citizens. Citizens existed to serve their governments. It didn’t matter whether your government was a pharaoh, tribal chieftain or a great conquerer. The people at the top, your government, owned you.

Peoples conquered and enslaved by the great Roman Empire could either serve Rome and surrender the fruit of their labor or risk death. Peasants were little more than chattel owned by the Nobleman upon whose land they lived. The King’s word was law. All subjects were duty-bound to do his bidding.

Government ordered and the people obeyed. And thus it was throughout history, until citizens of a country that had fought to rid themselves of a king’s rule created a new government for the purpose of serving them, instead of the other way around. The rules for running this new government were set forth in a Constitution. The laws would come not from a potentate, but from a legislature consisting of House of Representatives speaking as the voice of the people and a Senate representing the States. It was a government once described as being “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

And this government worked exceedingly well. The country grew to be the most wealthy and powerful country on Earth. A hundred years ago, with just 6% of the world’s population, this country produced half of all manufactured goods on the planet.

But always, as throughout history, there are people who want to rule. Bound by the chains of the Constitution, they set out to bend the rules as much as possible and change them when they could. The judicial branch of the government formed by the Constitution decided that it would be the arbiter of what the rules limiting it actually mean. Not surprisingly, using increasingly broad interpretations of the limited powers delegated to it, the government finds very little that the Constitution prevents it from doing to the point where today that government can safely ignore the limited powers it was granted and do pretty much anything it likes.

As a consequence, government of this once rich and powerful country now intrudes into every facet of citizens’ lives. The country’s citizens now find themselves working for the government, not the other way around. Like serfs of old, government has first claim on the fruit of their labors. We are left whatever government decides to let us keep.

The president of this country, who is required by the Constitution to “faithfully execute” the laws, now routinely ignores the laws themselves and issues directives to do as he orders, as though his word is law. He ignores his oath of office and the Constitution with impunity.

No longer are the people safe from warrantless searches and entitled to privacy. Government spies on us and collects data about our private lives with impunity. Permits are required as a prerequisite to exercise constitutionally protected rights. Government now has the ability to take over essential utilities like water and power as well as telephone and Internet communications. Government now dictates whom you may employ, how much you must pay them.

The laws are so voluminous that the country’s prisons have more inmates than any other nation in the world and fully half of the inmates never harmed anyone. They broke rules limiting their liberty.

Not coincidentally, the country is no longer rich and powerful. Is is heavily indebted with no hope of paying that debt.

The people behind this vast expansion of government call themselves “progressive.” implying that this extension of government into every aspect of our daily lives is somehow “progress.” But it isn’t. We are not progressing, we are regressing back to a time when citizens existed to serve the ruling class.

We have regressed to the point where government’s needs are superior to citizens’ needs in the government’s courts. We have regressed to the point that perpetuating government’s bureaucracies is more important than protecting what few rights citizens may still exercise.

They may call themselves “progressives” but they are in reality regressives, taking us back to a time when people existed to serve their governments.

It is interesting to note that “progressivism” is not new. At the end of the 19th century, progressives had so sullied the “progressive” brand with their failed policies that they abandoned “progressive” in favor of “liberal” and liberal they remained until liberalism too became tarnished by failed policies. It was time to once again dust off “progressivism” and inflict it on a populace that had forgotten how badly it failed previously.

Each time you hear someone extolling their “progressive” values, understand what they are really doing — taking us further back to a time when government reigned supreme and we were not free. It is not something about which to brag. It is not about progress; it is about ideas that have been tried and failed horribly. And it is certainly not about freedom. Their “progress” takes us only to an ever more authoritarian state.

The people propounding the progressive credo are not progressives, they are regressives.

If you can spare just two minutes, watch the start of this video. Then you be the judge as to whether or not Hillary broke the law and mshandled classified information.

Now compare what Hillary did to the two case mentioned here.

I heard it on the news in the wake of Associate Justice Ginsburg’s public comments on Donald Trump that “Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life…” Like much promulgated by the mainstream news media, it is not true.

The Constitution says: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…” which is to say that Justices can be removed for bad behavior.

Ginsburg issued a statement saying she ‘regrets‘ comments she made about candidate Donald Trump, saying they were ‘ill-advised,’ adding, ‘Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office.’

Bad Justice! <whack> Bad, BAD! <whack-whack>

The Usual Suspects have been clamoring to prevent persons on the No Fly list to the list from buying guns. Seems like “common sense,” we’re told.

But does it make sense to deprive someone of a Constitutionally-protected right without due process?

The late Senator Ted Kennedy once found his name on the No Fly list and it took him, a sitting U.S. Senator, three weeks to correct the error and get his name removed. How names get onto the No Fly list is a mystery. How to get a name removed from the list is a deeper mystery. The No Fly list has often had errors and mix ups are common: “I’m not that Peter Smith!”

Now, you might think that No Fly, No Buy would just add the No Fly list to the NCIC (National Criminal Instant Check) system. NCIC is what is queried when someone tries to buy a gun. If your name is in the NCIC system then you are a Prohibited Possessor and not permitted to own or possess a gun much less buy more guns.

But this is not what the No-Fly, No-Buy bill would have done. Apparently, under No-Fly, No-Buy, there would be two types of denied gun purchases: the usual those who cannot buy or own a gun and those who cannot buy a gun but can still own them. And, as in the case of actual Prohibited Possessors being denied a firearm purchase, there would have been no penalty for trying to buy one.

It was right and proper to defeat this ridiculous bit of legislation, if only over concerns for due process. Speaking of which…

The legislation over which the left staged a sit-in** contains this: “No district court of the United States or court of appeals of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section…” A more obvious indicator of their disdain for the Constitution I cannot imagine.

Not only can you not face your accuser, if you sue to find out what got you onto the list in the first place, there’s this: “(d)(4) No discovery shall be permitted, unless the court shall determine extraordinary circumstances requires discovery in the interests of justice.” And how often would a federal court determine that “extraordinary circumstances” exist? I’m guessing the chances fall somewhere between Hell Freezes Over and Never. So if they (the Attorney General, actually, and whatever bureaucracy he establishes) made their determination based on erroneous information, you have no way to correct it.

The law is so blatantly unconstitutional, they tried to prevent anyone from even challenging its constitutionality. IMO, anyone supporting this legislation ought to be run out of office — recalled or voted out at the earliest opportunity.

No-Fly, No-Buy is horrid legislation. But it is passed off as “common sense” by people (Democrats, news media) who know not what i does or just don’t give a shit about due process and the Constitution. And so we continue our plodding toward a total police state.

On a related subject, I have trouble accepting the whole concept of a no-fly list. If these people are dangerous, really dangerous, oughtn’t they be incarcerated? And, if incarceration is too tough on mere “suspected terrorists” then why not allow them to fly but subject them to the entire body-scan – cavity search protocol before letting them board? Are we saying that TSA cannot ferret out dangerous devices and explosives? (Actually, they demonstrably are not able to, based on tests conducted at various airports throughout the country. But that’s another whole topic.)

Divide the cabin into first class, coach and suspected terrorists. Outfit the latter section with those Hannibal Lecter restraint devices and let “suspected terrorists” ride confined to their destination. “Now pre-boarding suspected terrorists…”

Or simply bind them to their seats in coach. Leg and hand irons perhaps? Too “insulting” or discriminatory? But denying a Constitutionally protected right is okay… Go figure.

Seriously, are they admitting that even if we know who these “suspected terrorists” are, there’s no defense against them, short of forbidding them to fly? Like they cannot drive, take the train or hitch-hike to the next Orlando or San Bernardino.

Is there any demonstrable benefit to a no-fly list?

No-Fly, No-Buy is the “common sense” of idiots.

**
All those “as long as it takes” sitters-in certainly gave up quickly enough. I was looking forward to seeing Porta-Pottis on the House floor.

Setting aside how much sense this measure makes, let’s consider the No Fly list itself.